W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:27:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4A71F41F.8010404@intertwingly.net>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Ben Adida wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> This is dangerous territory. I represent Creative Commons, which pays
>>> W3C dues. As of a few days ago, I'm a member of the HTML WG (after
>>> having been encouraged to join by you). How does anyone get to say that
>>> my vote doesn't count? Who gets to decide who votes as a block? Does the
>>> WHATWG vote as a block? Probably, and probably with a lot more sway than
>>> any other group.
>> Ultimately, and in order: the chairs, the Interaction Domain Lead, and
>> then the Director of the W3C.
> Are you referring to my question "who gets to decide who votes as a
> block?" I don't think *anyone* should get to decide. We have rules for
> membership, and we should follow them. If the Director wants to override
> a working group's vote, well okay that may be his prerogative, but the
> public record should show the invididual votes, and the process until
> then should be the same for all.
>> I have stated that the WHATWG (note: WHATWG, not HTML WG) is operating
>> under a CTR process.
> I *was* talking about the HTML WG, and so were you when this discussion
> was initially brought up:
> "For better or worse, the HTML WG is operating under a CTR process."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0063.html

I mispoke.

> That's exactly what happened with micro-data: Ian made a proposal and
> immediately integrated it into the spec. That's exactly what should
> happen with HTML5+RDFa.

I'll take this in the other order.

Ian incorporated micro-data into an editors draft.  Manu incorporated 
RDFa into an editors draft.  So far, we are at parity.

Now we are at the point of making a group decision on how to proceed 
with meeting our heartbeat requirements.  Per today's call (you can see 
the raw IRC logs until they are published) this will proceed as via a 
poll that will start on Monday unless Larry and John explicitly and 
clearly withdraws their objections and no body else steps forward and 
states an objection.  Note: I said poll not a vote.

Based on the current state of the documents, I have recommended that we 
proceed at this point in time with Ian's "branch" merely for the 
purposes of meeting the heartbeat requirement.  But that is only a 
recommendation, others are welcome to make other recommendations at this 
time.  Such an approach is without-prejudice, specifically, the lack of 
inclusion of RDFa in this particular draft does not indicate taking a 
position against later inclusion; similarly the inclusion of micro-data 
does not indicate a statement that such will be included in the Last Call.

I say that, but I recognize that people outside of this group may not be 
fully aware of the subtleties of this position and despite our explicit 
claims to the contrary may be confused, and welcome counter proposals to 
address this: perhaps via stronger and more explicit disclaimers, or by 
including or excluding specific sections.

And to be perfectly clear: what I (as a member, not as a chair) have 
proposed is that we proceed with Ian's draft as is, i.e., with no 
additional disclaimers, with micro-data, and without RDFa, and without 
linkage to the publication of any other draft.  If somebody wishes to 
suggest another approach, they should do so at this time.

The only constraint I will suggest is that given that the heartbeat 
requirement is, in fact, a requirement and that it has been known policy 
for a long period of time, I an not predisposed to entertain proposals 
of ignoring this requirement.

> -Ben

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 19:28:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:51 UTC